All Iberian men were wiped out by Yamna men 4,500 years ago

@ markod.

Interesting. However, I find it hard to understand how U152, speaking a language that had definitely long turned P-Celtic by the time you refer to, could have spread Q-Celtic Gaelic in Ireland. Besides, U152 in Ireland is restricted to very small areas, which hardly suggests a late-coming U152 superstratum.

Now if Gaelic speakers were late-comers to Ireland, where did they arrive from ?
 
berun said:
weird is the adjective less bitter for it. the authors found R1b in Central Spain linked to Ciempozuelos pottery (2nd millenium) but with the wished steppe, and left those without it aside, even if those were the oldest tested for Iberia. Call it Reich's science.
Click to expand...

I find it extremely interesting that it was linked to Ciempozuelos pottery. From a quick Google search, Coon concerning the Dinaric nature of BB and the absence of Dinaric forms in Spain:

"In Spain, however, they are frequently of the Megalithic race. The basis for the belief that the Bell Beaker people of Spain were Dinarics rests largely upon three cranial fragments from the type site of this culture at Ciempozuelos, near Madrid..."

I can't believe I hadn't read this until now:

https://theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-V5.htm

This is, basically, the missing link! Obviously, we need aDNA, but still - why were those samples skipped over? That is REALLY puzzling.
 
hrvclv said:
@ markod.

Interesting. However, I find it hard to understand how U152, speaking a language that had definitely long turned P-Celtic by the time you refer to, could have spread Q-Celtic Gaelic in Ireland. Besides, U152 in Ireland is restricted to very small areas, which hardly suggests a late-coming U152 superstratum.

Now if Gaelic speakers were late-comers to Ireland, where did they arrive from ?
Click to expand...

This is puzzling me too, however it would still puzzle me even with this Yamnaya hypothesis, given the fact that there is basically no way Celtic dates back to P312 (as Italic is associated with U152). Given Italic is not a branch of Celtic, and if we play the game of linking haplogroups to language carriers, that leaves Celtic as originating among U152 (or later) folk, and indeed the current consensus is with the Hallstatt culture (U152).

The only other way around this is to say that (at least through my hypothesis) instead of L151 folk adopting an undifferentiated Germano-Italo-Celtic language of Corded Ware, OR instead of P312 Beakers adopting an undifferentiated Italo-Celtic language of Corded Ware and U106 folk separately adopting Germanic from a different branch of Corded Ware, there would be FOUR separate adoptions (L21 adopting Rhineland Corded Ware's Celtic, a branch of U152 adopting Rhineland Corded Ware's Celtic, another branch of U152 adopting Corded Ware's Italic, and U106 adopting Corded Ware's Germanic). I mean, it's possible, but Occam's razor goes against that. I personally believe in the second one (two separate adoptions - one of I-C and one of G)
 
hrvclv said:
@ markod.

Interesting. However, I find it hard to understand how U152, speaking a language that had definitely long turned P-Celtic by the time you refer to, could have spread Q-Celtic Gaelic in Ireland. Besides, U152 in Ireland is restricted to very small areas, which hardly suggests a late-coming U152 superstratum.

Now if Gaelic speakers were late-comers to Ireland, where did they arrive from ?
Click to expand...

Schrijver argues that they came from lowland Britain, fleeing the Romans. He believes that Irish is much closer to the Celtic substratum in Old English than are the Britonnic languages.
 
Davidski's insider buddies like Haak are saying the big shots have given up on the steppe narrative and are considering Kura-Araxes the PIE culture now.
 
Saetrus said:
Davidski's insider buddies like Haak are saying the big shots have given up on the steppe narrative and are considering Kura-Araxes the PIE culture now.
Click to expand...

I actually think what I've said hits the nail on the head personally aha - but where did you get that info from? Also don't let Olympus Mons hear about this, he'll go crazy, even though I reckon this K-A hypothesis is probably a modified Kurgan theory with origins South of the Caucasus.

How I'm interpreting this is that they haven't found any Steppe in Anatolian samples.
 
markod said:
Schrijver argues that they came from lowland Britain, fleeing the Romans. He believes that Irish is much closer to the Celtic substratum in Old English than are the Britonnic languages.
Click to expand...

It goes against everything I've held as probable so far, but I'll (reluctantly) concede it makes sense.

It suggests that pre-Roman Britain may have been partly P-Celtic (Welsh, Pictish ?), partly Q-Celtic. I'm still rather sceptical, but it opens some space for reasonable doubt, though.
 
Is it possible that (in the hypothesis I've spouted out for half of this thread) instead of picking up Western IE from Corded Ware, L51 Beaker folk picked it up from Hungarian Yamnaya?

EDIT: Actually is that not unlikely, as that would be around 2500BC, but surely that is way too late for an undifferentiated proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic to exist, right?
 
ToBeOrNotToBe said:
I find it extremely interesting that it was linked to Ciempozuelos pottery. From a quick Google search, Coon concerning the Dinaric nature of BB and the absence of Dinaric forms in Spain:

"In Spain, however, they are frequently of the Megalithic race. The basis for the belief that the Bell Beaker people of Spain were Dinarics rests largely upon three cranial fragments from the type site of this culture at Ciempozuelos, near Madrid..."

I can't believe I hadn't read this until now:

https://theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-V5.htm

This is, basically, the missing link! Obviously, we need aDNA, but still - why were those samples skipped over? That is REALLY puzzling.
Click to expand...

Ciempozuelos pottery is a regional development of BB, pots found in Barcelona are of the International or Maritime style and dates... some centuries older.
 
ToBeOrNotToBe said:
Or, they bred amongst themselves in a caste system in Spain (which we know existed in Los Millares), until for whatever reason they moved to France for Lebensraum and experienced population growth - that's my idea at the moment, at least.
Click to expand...
But why would they have gone from a couple of localised paternal lines in a rigid caste system to suddenly spreading out in all directions as rampant egalitarian sexual adventurers?
Especially given the absence of L51 in early archeological samples, I would suggest they were probably a struggling lineage until just before Bell Beaker.
 
Pip said:
But why would they have gone from a couple of localised paternal lines in a rigid caste system to suddenly spreading out in all directions as rampant egalitarian sexual adventurers?
Especially given the absence of L51 in early archeological samples, I would suggest they were probably a struggling lineage until just before Bell Beaker.
Click to expand...

I don't see the relevance, we both agree the population exploded right? Why does it matter if it came from a self-contained elite or if it was simply having a hard time
 
berun said:
Ciempozuelos pottery is a regional development of BB, pots found in Barcelona are of the International or Maritime style and dates... some centuries older.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I mean in the brachycephaly. Interestingly enough, Coon actually links the later El Argar to the Middle East but not to Bell Beakers, which could be one of the sources of Spanish J2.
 
ToBeOrNotToBe said:
Matches perfectly with the theory I'm backing :)
Click to expand...

Really?

In 2001, John P. Jackson, Jr. researched Coon's papers to review the controversy around the reception of The Origin of Races, stating in the article abstract

Segregationists in the United States used Coon's work as proof that African Americans were "junior" to white Americans, and thus unfit for full participation in American society. The paper examines the interactions among Coon, segregationist Carleton Putnam, geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, and anthropologist Sherwood Washburn. The paper concludes that Coon actively aided the segregationist cause in violation of his own standards for scientific objectivity.[30]
​

Jackson found in the archived Coon papers records of repeated efforts by Coon to aid Putnam's efforts to provide intellectual support to the ongoing resistance to racial integration but cautioned Putnam against statements that could identify Coon as an active ally. (Jackson also noted that both men had become aware that they had General Israel Putnam as a common ancestor, making them (at least distant) cousins, but Jackson indicated neither when either learned of the family relationship nor whether they had a more recent common ancestor.)[30]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon
 
CrazyDonkey said:
Really?




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything at all?! Coon predicted quite a lot of things correctly, and he was extremely competent - using him as a source of information is perfectly justified. Please could you point out anything in his writings that is racist, as I think he tried to remain strictly scientific (even if he had a hard-on for Mediterraneans in the broader sense of the word).
 
ToBeOrNotToBe said:
What does that have to do with anything at all?! Coon predicted quite a lot of things correctly, and he was extremely competent - using him as a source of information is perfectly justified. Please could you point out anything in his writings that is racist, as I think he tried to remain strictly scientific (even if he had a hard-on for Mediterraneans in the broader sense of the word).
Click to expand...

You tell me - you cited him.

“My thesis is, in essence, that at the beginning of our record, over half a million years ago, man was a single species, Homo Erectus, perhaps already divided into five geographic races or subspecies. Homo Erectus then evolved into Homo Sapiens not once but five times, as each subspecies, living in its own territory, passed a critical threshold from a more brutal to a more sapient state.”

Coon maintained that these five evolutionary jumps corresponded with what he saw as modern racial divisions among humans, with the Caucasoid race evolving 200,000 years before the Congoid.
Click to expand...

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.582.6750&rep=rep1&type=pdf
 
I agree with the idea that the only L51 clades spreading Indo-European languages were U106 and U152. DF27 and L21 are Atlantic outliers, pretty much restricted to western coastal Europe. What languages they spoke are unknown. R1a-M417 and R1b-Z2103 were the main vectors of Indo-European steppe expansion. Which of the two spread the languages to the ancestors of U152 and basal U106 is unknown.
 
CrazyDonkey said:
You tell me - you cited him.



http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.582.6750&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Click to expand...

Idiot, get off this site if you can't handle something as mild as Coon.

Joey37 said:
I agree with the idea that the only L51 clades spreading Indo-European languages were U106 and U152. DF27 and L21 are Atlantic outliers, pretty much restricted to western coastal Europe. What languages they spoke are unknown. R1a-M417 and R1b-Z2103 were the main vectors of Indo-European steppe expansion. Which of the two spread the languages to the ancestors of U152 and basal U106 is unknown.
Click to expand...

Yup, I'm entirely in alignment with that.
 
ToBeOrNotToBe said:
Idiot, get off this site if you can't handle something as mild as Coon.
Click to expand...

Nice. You go from accusing me of "trying to shut down discussion," to telling me to "get off this site," for pointing out that Coon, who you cited approvingly, is clearly a discredited apologist for white (or Caucasoid) supremacism. How else are we to take his defining race as a hierarchy of separate "subspecies", with whites at the top and blacks on the bottom?
 
CrazyDonkey said:
Nice. You go from accusing me of "trying to shut down discussion," to telling me to "get off this site," for pointing out that Coon, who you cited approvingly, is clearly a discredited apologist for white (or Caucasoid) supremacism. How else are we to take his defining race as a hierarchy of separate "subspecies", with whites at the top and blacks on the bottom?
Click to expand...

I still don't see where he said that Whites were at the top (even if he probably believed it), so don't start lying now. And it's Coon, how can you be on a site like this and not be able to handle him. That's like going to Crufts and complaining that the judge cited a quote from an author who loves Border Collies and hate Pugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 249798 times.

Back
Top